From the FLORIDA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY and the “if we make a correction factor, we’ve got funding” department.
New Eocene fossil data suggest climate models may underestimate future polar warming
GAINESVILLE, Fla. — A new international analysis of marine fossils shows that warming of the polar oceans during the Eocene, a greenhouse period that provides a glimpse of Earth’s potential future climate, was greater than previously thought.
By studying the chemical composition of fossilized foraminifera, tiny single-celled animals that lived in shallow tropical waters, a team of researchers generated precise estimates of tropical sea surface temperatures and seawater chemistry during the Eocene Epoch, 56-34 million years ago. Using these data, researchers fine-tuned estimates from previous foram studies that captured polar conditions to show tropical oceans warmed substantially in the Eocene, but not as much as polar oceans.
Importantly, when modern climate models – the same as those used in the United Nations’ recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports – were run under Eocene conditions, many could not replicate these findings. Instead, the models consistently underestimated polar ocean warming in the Eocene.
This discrepancy may result from a gap in our understanding of the climate system or from what we know about the Eocene, said David Evans, the study’s lead author and Leverhulme Research Fellow at the University of St Andrews’ School of Earth and Environmental Sciences. If it does indeed relate to the climate system, it raises the possibility that predictions of future polar warming are also too low.
“Yes, the tropics are warming but nowhere near to the same degree as the polar regions,” Evans said. “That’s something we really need to be able to understand and replicate in climate models. The fact that many models are unable to do that at the moment is worrying.”
The researchers published their findings this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Scientists frequently look to the Eocene to understand how the Earth responds to higher levels of carbon dioxide. During the Eocene, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was more than 560 parts per million, at least twice preindustrial levels, and the epoch kicked off with a global average temperature more than 8 degrees Celsius – about 14 degrees Fahrenheit – warmer than today, gradually cooling over the next 22 million years. These characteristics make the Eocene a good period on which to test our understanding of the climate system, said Laura Cotton, study co-author and curator of micropaleontology at the Florida Museum of Natural History.
One of the challenges has been accurately determining the difference between sea surface temperatures at the poles and the equator during the Eocene, with models predicting greater differences than data suggested.
The research team used large bottom-dwelling forams as “paleothermometers” to gain a more precise temperature reading. Forams have an exceptionally long fossil record, spanning more than 540 million years, and they are often well-preserved in ocean sediments. Most are small enough to fit into the eye of a needle – Cotton describes them as “an amoeba with a shell” – but they were so abundant during the Eocene that there are entire rocks composed of them.
“If you look at the pyramids, they’re full of these tiny little lentil-like things – those are forams,” Cotton said. “The ancient Greeks thought the pyramids were made from the fossilized lentils of slaves, but it’s just the limestone from one of these deposits that is absolutely filled with them.”
Forams form their shells in concert with ocean temperatures and chemistry, acting as miniscule time capsules, each containing a precise record of the temperature and ocean chemistry during its lifetime. Their shells are primarily made of calcium, carbon and oxygen. Heavy isotopes of carbon and oxygen bond together as a foram makes its shell – the cooler the temperature, the more they bond to each other.
By analyzing these clumped isotopes from fossil specimens found in India, Indonesia and Tanzania, the researchers could get an accurate reading of sea surface temperature across the tropics in the Eocene. They also lasered a small hole in each specimen to measure the amount of magnesium and calcium that vaporized, revealing the seawater chemistry.
They found that tropical sea surface temperature in the Eocene was about 6 degrees Celsius – about 10 degrees Fahrenheit – warmer than today.
“This was the first time we had samples that were good enough and this method was well-known enough that it could all come together,” Cotton said.
The team then used their dataset from the tropics to back-calculate the temperature and chemistry of polar oceans, relying on previous studies of forams that captured the conditions of those regions.
With this correction factor in place, they investigated the degree to which polar oceans warmed more than the tropics, a feature of the climate system known as polar amplification. Their data showed that the difference between polar and equatorial sea surface temperatures in the Eocene was an estimated 20 degrees Celsius, about 36 degrees Fahrenheit. Today the difference is 28 degrees Celsius, indicating that polar regions are more sensitive to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide than the tropics.
Troublingly, said Evans, when the team compared their data with various modern climate models under Eocene conditions, most models underestimated polar amplification by about 50 percent.
The two models that came closest to reproducing the team’s data had one key aspect in common – they modified the way they accounted for cloud formation and the longevity of clouds in the atmosphere, particularly in the polar regions.
“To us, that looks like a promising research direction,” he said. “If – and it’s a big if – that turns out to be the right avenue to go down, that could play into the models we use for our future climate predictions.”
###
Well, I’m just going to leave this here, because it confirms that CO2 is necessary to plant life, which supports animal life. Without plants, animal and insect life will suffocate and die off. Yes, I know insects are animals, just being a teensy bit specific.)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/04/030404071649.htm
Fossils Show Extreme Plant Diversity In South America 50 Million Years Ago
Date:
April 4, 2003
Source:
Penn State
Summary:
The extreme biological diversity found in today’s New World tropical forests began much earlier than previously thought and has researchers rethinking its origins, according to an international team of researchers studying fossil plants from Argentina.
Excerpt: “Adjusted for sample size, observed richness exceeds that of any other Eocene leaf flora, supporting an ancient history of high plant diversity in warm areas of South America,” the researchers report in today’s (April 4) issue of the journal, Science.
Although the fossil site, 817 miles southwest of Buenos Aires, is currently in a temperate desert area, it had a warm, frost-free and moist climate with lush vegetation during the early Eocene, 52 million years ago. This period was the warmest of the past 70 million years of Earth history and predated the Andes mountain range, which currently blocks Pacific moisture from reaching the area.
Warm is good. Keeps us alive, sheltered and fed. Cold is not, does not keep us alive, sheltered and fed.
What’s the real problem, aside from losing grant money?
Rather then waste time on trying to link the current Arctic warming to the Eocene.
Why don’t they see how the extent over the NH where temps are at 0 C or under has changed in recent years. Because the snow cover extent suggests that there has been very little change in this in recent years despite the warming of the Arctic.
To whom is it worrying? Idiots? Brainwashed school children? No, even they are not worried by something this esoteric. To truly worry about something so inane, it requires a hockey team climate scientist
According to Warmist Wisdom, first the temperature warmed, by non-CO2 means, so by magic, then the warming caused CO2 to rise, which then kicked in more warming, causing more CO2 to be released, and so on. Gosh, you would think that the oceans would have boiled away, and we would now have the atmosphere of say, Venus. But somehow, again, by magic, instead of the warming causing the oceans to boil, we cooled! Gee, go figure.
“Thanks to a thick layer of cloud cover trapping in heat, Venus is the hottest planet in our solar system, with temperatures boiling over at 850 degrees Fahrenheit (454 C). But in a study published last week in Nature Physics, the European Space Agency found something surprising at the planet’s poles: temperatures more frigid than anywhere on Earth.”
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/04/esa-finds-a-frigid-surprise-hiding-at-venus-poles
Funny how they never ‘underestimate’ anything measurable TODAY.
I under estimated that grant collecting potential of these numbnuts.
Wrong. Jeez.
Models of ice loss underestimated.
Tropospheric temps underestimated.
Not over the tropics, where it is supposed to matter, Mr. Mosher. Go back to your hustling the Bitcoin rubes Weed Wandering efforts.
Wow! For CAGW Theory, there is money hiding under every rock that they cn come across. There’s even more gold in that Settled Science yet to be found.
If rising CO2 increases positive NAO/AO as the IPCC circulation models predict, that would only cool the AMO and Arctic.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
Here’s what polar amplification looks like on Venus:
Source:
https://phys.org/news/2012-10-curious-cold-layer-atmosphere-venus.html
Were the ocean currents and land formations in the same place during the Eocene as they are now? Of course not. Is climate chaotic? Yes.
‘Today the difference is 28 degrees Celsius, indicating that polar regions are more sensitive to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide than the tropics.”
It indicate no such thing! That statement was made based on the assumption that CO2 is the driving force behind all temperature changes on the planet.
What was the absolute humidity during this time? Are they even aware that water vapour is a GHG? Are they aware that as the IR radiative gas concentrations tend to zero the temperature of the atmosphere rises due to an inability to cool?
The study is interesting but the analysis is flawed.
Second thing: if the Delta T is now 20 and the Arctic ocean is 3 deg C, and back in the day it was 8 deg warmer in the tropics, that means it is presently 23 C and back in the day it was 31.
Does anyone else notice that 31 C is the maximum tropical ocean temperature attainable before the Willis cloud and thunderstorm mechanism (WCTM) kicks in? Fits perfectly with modern observations. There is an upper limit to tropical ocean temperature. Anything additional is pumped to the poles.
Troubling?
A) The climate models have failed repeatedly to model climate; even with extensive “tuning” seeking the “right” mix of inputs.
B) Notice these alleged researchers immediately ignore the obvious answer; i.e. the climate models are failures.
C) Notice that the immediate reaction of these alleged researchers is that somehow, without a proven mechanism, CO2 warmed the Eocene Arctic waters. No need to chart where warm water currents traveled.
“Precise”?
Well, that is an unusual use of the word, precise.
“This discrepancy may result from a gap in our understanding of the climate system”
You think!? Well, that is a Doh! moment.
“If it does indeed relate to the climate system, it raises the possibility that predictions of future polar warming are also too low”
How in blazes do these yahoos use “If it does relate” and “predictions of future polar warming are also too low” together in one paragraph to justify CAGW?
That gross assumption is solely based on confirmation bias and religious faith; not questioning science, applying reason and properly evaluating data!
‘ precise estimates ‘ – Great phrase!
“Notice that the immediate reaction of these alleged researchers is that somehow, without a proven mechanism, CO2 warmed the Eocene Arctic waters. No need to chart where warm water currents traveled.”
The GHE of atmospheric CO2 is proven.
That you do not accept that does not make it so.
We have ~150 years of empirical science that says so.
If you have evidence/theory otherwise the world awaits.
The Eocene climate would manifest the GHE in the same way. Given that there is a source/sink (oceans) present.
And that the earth is still wobbling on it’s orbit now, as it did then.
And that that driver would be followed by the CO2 feed-back.
If it came first naturally CO2 becomes the driver.
As it must have done in order to get Earth out of an ice-ball state.
““This discrepancy may result from a gap in our understanding of the climate system”
You think!? Well, that is a Doh! moment.”
No it’s not.
The basic thermodynamics of SW absorbed (must =) LWIR emitted is what counts for stable climate.
It is currently not equal.
The anthro driven GHE is the culprit.
It may or may not have been in the Eocene …. but at the very least it was an amplifying feed-back of orbital eccentricity.
More mis-direction Toneb?
List all research that proves a significant CO2 effect in the atmosphere!
Sorry, lab experiments extrapolated to “possibilities” are not experiments regarding the atmosphere.
Making your claims about my “beliefs” as totally fallacious. Until, alarmists providing explicit proofs, experiment verifications and independent replications.
Nor does “your” 150 years of empirical observations provide any support or verification towards a major CO2 temperature driver. Conflating 150 sparse temperature records with extremely sparse CO2 measurements provide zero proof towards a CO2 atmosphere driver.
Without “evidence/proof that CO2 is a major atmospheric driver, natural variation is the operating mechanism and as modern current evidence amply demonstrates very misunderstood by alleged climate researchers.
Nor do alarmists manage to honestly portray how a miniscule amount of CO2 increase affect atmosphere temperatures through small interactive abilities with a minimal amount of infra-red frequencies.
Water is a much more active molecule absorbing/emitting infra red frequencies.
Water is a far higher component of the atmosphere, even in the driest environments.
Water is active across a large swath of infra-red frequencies.
Baseless unproven claim about the Eocene.
N.B. that toneb pretends that his earlier CO2 atmospheric activity claim automatically verifies “Florida Museum of Natural History’s” pitiful research claims. That’s an incredible leap of logic based on gross assumptions.
Then toneb follows up by throwing straw man arguments out:
• Wobbling axis; toneb fails to explain why this validates anything.
• “that that driver would be followed by CO2 feedback.”: The unproven CO2 atmospheric effect independent of water and many other GHG is again promoted as a major atmospheric effect.
• Ooooh, the fears! Godzillar rises again! toneb’s “get Earth out of an ice-ball state”; now that’s an amazing assumption leap.
Again, toneb throws out false straw man distractions:
• Shortwave absorbed – Long Wave Infra-red = “stable climate”.
Got that!?
Only CO2 strictly absorbs or emits a few, very few frequencies of infra-red. Only if and when that LWIR consists of those few infra-red frequencies is CO2 involved. For the vast majority of the infrared spectrum, water vapor is the active atmospheric component.
• “It is currently not equal”.
Here, toneb is apparently referring to the common model of down welling and outgoing energy budget. It’s a nice simple model, totally devoid of detail and actual numbers.
Nor does toneb, again, bother to separate out the whale’s effect on the atmosphere, versus the flea’s effect. If you haven’t figured it out; water is the whale and CO2 is the flea.
• “The anthro driven GHE is the culprit.”
Pure cultist advocacy!
Especially considering that NOAA themselves through the use of the OCO-2 satellite imaged Earth’s CO2’s release from warming water and CO2’s dissolving into cooling water.
Globally, man’s miniscule emissions compared to the global total atmospheric CO2 are barely recognizable. Which goes a long way towards explaining why NOAA and others do not research actually proving a CO2 atmospheric effect.
Now, toneb; since the late 1800s’ the total increase of atmospheric CO2 is 1.2 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of atmosphere.
Yet, in toneb’s advocacy world frame, those 1.2 molecules of increased CO2 raise the temperature of 9,996 other molecules substantially. This is before somehow raising the temperatures of untold amounts of ground surface and water surface molecules…
yeah, right…
In a physics world, those 1.2 extra CO2 molecules potentially and infinitesimally increase the lapse rate; thus slowing a few infra red frequencies escape to space.
Unlike, feeling a temperature difference when clouds pass overhead or when a moist air mass moves in, local variations and changes in atmospheric CO2 are impossible to detect via temperature.
“It may or may not have been in the Eocene …. but at the very least it was an amplifying feed-back of orbital eccentricity”:
N.B. toneb’s rough “may not” admission belies toneb’s doubling down on his specious claims. Well, except for the orbital eccentricity portion. As climate science’s failed climate models repeatedly prove, assumptions regarding CO2 feedback are grossly overstated and very misunderstood!
Or the models wouldn’t be playing the:
Tweak that aerosols parameter,
Tweak that clouds parameter,
Tweak the feedback sensitivity,
Increase the sea surface temperatures
along with:
NOAA wouldn’t be adjusting perfectly good temperature records or inventing temperatures where they are not collected.
Require all IPCC AR6 CMIP6 climate models use the exact same estimates of historical aerosol types and concentrations. I’d bet the Russian model is the only one that could hack its way out of that problem.
Clouds, Toneb?
“List all research that proves a significant CO2 effect in the atmosphere!”
None needed my friend unless you deny that the Earth does not radiate at 255k yet has a surface temp of 288k
Yes, the majority is due WV but without CO2, WV would rain/snow out.
I have provided research and do not propose to dance to your gainsaying.
The are multiple ones from may lines of attack.
I propose a radical suggestion.
The climate scientists know more than you Mr ATheoK.
Staggering thought for you and many on here I know.
“Sorry, lab experiments extrapolated to “possibilities” are not experiments regarding the atmosphere.”
I have also said recently that there are none and what’s more can be none.
It’s a planet.
Even if there were, the likes on here would “d” it.
So we should give up on all lab research science? …. and super-computing modeling also just because we can’t do experiments on the atmosphere?
Truly bizarre.
Just because you say stuff to promote doubt my friend does make the probabilities of correctness go away.
The “just because we don’t know anything doesn’t mean we know nothing” meme is common-sense. To say otherwise is bollocks.
Build a time-machine and go tell Arrhenius that 150 years later no one has “proved” him wrong – I doubt he would, unlike you, be surprised that there can be no “experiments of the CO2 effect on the atmosphere” (other than the one I have linked and necessarily uses a LBL radiation transfer algorithm to determine forcing from the spectroscopically measured CO2 DWIR spectrum)
However I’d suggest that he would be staggered that we have promoters of doubt who appear to have ideological and not scientific motivations to do so …. even there is no spare planet on hand (unless you know otherwise).
How do we know that models underestimate future polar warming? Simple – we just know the future. We don’t need no damn models.
It still troubles me that they dive in headfirst with if the temperature is up, CO2 must have caused it. Nobody can prove that. Nobody. So everything after is just so much blah, blah, blah.
From the blurb:
In my mind it raises the very strong likelihood that the climate models have got the theory completely wrong.
Here’s a simple question they can’t answer – if CO2 is so strong an effect, how do you get back to an ice age after an interglacial?
Funny thing about the Eocene. As a geophysicist I spent a lot of time exploring for Eocene reefs which were thought to be an prolific source of oil in North Africa and worldwide. However we know now from climate science communicators that coral reefs are simply not possible under such conditions of CO2 and temperature. What were we thinking about? We science deniers to be wasting our time drfilling such dogs.
And yet and where did the billions of barrels in Intisar D reef come from?